 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2009"computerised database"
Ladies and Gentlemen: ---------- The Cambridge International Corpus (CIC) is a very large collection of English texts, stored in a computerised database, which can be searched to see how English is used. ---------- (Quoted from http://www.cambridge.org/elt/corpus/international_corpus.htm ) Is "computerised database" tautological? Regards, Tacia Tacia <outofdejavu@gmail.com> Whose moving finger wrote, and cheerfully Clicked "Send" to wing the words below to me, Is powerless to cancel half a line: 'Tis stored on Google sempiternally. >Ladies and Gentlemen: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Is "computerised database" tautological? Not necessarily. A card index or any collection of data could theoretically be described as a database, or at least a "data base". Perhaps Evan can search the early hits in Google Books and tell us what kinds of data bases the term could refer to. Incidentally, there's something suspicious about the way Google Books dates some of its publications. I find it hard to believe that "Cyberspace and the repositioning of corporations" is really from 1905, or that "Computer diagnosis and diagnostic methods" was really published in 1897.  SignatureJames [snip] > Incidentally, there's something suspicious about the way Google > Books dates some of its publications. I find it hard to believe > that "Cyberspace and the repositioning of corporations" is really > from 1905, or that "Computer diagnosis and diagnostic methods" > was really published in 1897. Ah, that's nothin'! I have a file on my hard drive dated "Wednesday, October 04, 1617, 4:17:21 PM". I actually bothered to look it up, and it turns out the Microsoft file dating scheme (on NTFS5 disks) starts sometime in 1610. No explanation of why it does so was apparent, however. Jim Deutch (JimboCat) -- "An unexpected error has occured: the process completed successfully." JimboCat set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: > I have a file on my hard drive dated "Wednesday, October 04, 1617, > 4:17:21 PM". > > I actually bothered to look it up, and it turns out the Microsoft file > dating scheme (on NTFS5 disks) starts sometime in 1610. No explanation > of why it does so was apparent, however. The dating system used in MS-Dos and its descendants (all FATn file systems) uses a 7-bit field for its dates allowing a 128-year epoch. The origin of the system is 1980 so it will run out in 2107. Your document from 1617 could come from a parallel world where they had computers four centuries before we did, but more likely whatever (f)utility transferred the file from a FATn file system, copied the relative year without being aware of the different time-origin of the (what does it stand for? Never twice the f***ing - er - um - ) system, where they use a larger year field to cover the more distant past as well as the more distant future. Signatureξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply Prai Jei skrev: > > I actually bothered to look it up, and it turns out the Microsoft file > > dating scheme (on NTFS5 disks) > The dating system used in MS-Dos and its descendants (all FATn file systems) NTFS is not a FAT system. SignatureBertel http://bertel.lundhansen.dk/ FIDUSO: http://fiduso.dk/ Bertel Lund Hansen skrev: > Prai Jei skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > NTFS is not a FAT system. NTFS is a "file allocation table" > Bertel Lund Hansen skrev: >> Prai Jei skrev: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> > NTFS is a "file allocation table" FAT is a File allocation table for MS-dos - NTFS is the standard file system for Windows NT including its later versions Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Server 2008, Windows Vista, and Windows 7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS#History loke skrev: > >> The dating system used in MS-Dos and its descendants (all FATn file systems) > > NTFS is not a FAT system. > NTFS is a "file allocation table" Do you actually know how it is organized, or are you trying to be funny? Whichever is true, NTFS is still not a FAT-system. And it is not a descendant of DOS. SignatureBertel http://bertel.lundhansen.dk/ FIDUSO: http://fiduso.dk/ > Prai Jei skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> The dating system used in MS-Dos and its descendants (all FATn file >> systems) > NTFS is not a FAT system. Correct. NTFS is an acronym for NT file system. An advanced file system designed for use specifically with the Windows NT operating system. It supports long filenames, full security access control, file system recovery, extremely large storage media, and various features for the Windows NT POSIX subsystem. It also supports object-oriented applications by treating all files as objects with user-defined and system-defined attributes. The FAT file system is the system used by MS-DOS to organize and manage files. The FAT (file allocation table) is a data structure that MS-DOS creates on the disk when the disk is formatted. When MS-DOS stores a file on a formatted disk, the operating system places information about the stored file in the FAT so that MS-DOS can retrieve the file later when requested. The FAT is the only file system MS-DOS can use; OS/2, Windows NT, and Windows 9x operating systems can use the FAT file system in addition to their own file systems (HPFS, NTFS, and VFAT, respectively). "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw> set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: > The FAT is the only file system MS-DOS can use; OS/2, Windows > NT, and Windows 9x operating systems can use the FAT file system in > addition to their own file systems (HPFS, NTFS, and VFAT, respectively). Linux also can work with FATn file systems as well as various ones of its own (Minix, Ext2, Ext3, R****r [1] and many others). Current versions have got as far as read-only access to NTFS file systems. Further development of NTFS access is hampered because M*******t [2] won't release the proprietary gen on how to write the security flags along with the file information. There's been an alpha release but you have to decide to activate it yourself after reading past the strong warnings. [1] Starred out because it's a bit of a dirty word in the Linux community - the inventor of the system, after whom it's named, is now serving time for the murder of his wife. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiser_FS [2] Starred out because I'm a Linux fan and don't think all that much of the other lot. Signatureξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply >[1] Starred out because it's a bit of a dirty word in the Linux community - >the inventor of the system, after whom it's named, is now serving time for >the murder of his wife. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiser_FS From a report of the trial: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/28/BA9O10D8B4.DTL&hw=ha ns+reiser+verdict&sn=001&sc=1000 or http://tinyurl.com/4zsx4q But prosecutor Paul Hora said the lack of a body wasn't an insurmountable challenge for the seven-man, five-woman panel. "We have a body," Hora said, referring to evidence of Nina Reiser's blood in Hans Reiser's car and home. "We just don't know where it is." SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > JimboCat set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time > continuum: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > year field to cover the more distant past as well as the more distant > future. I'm almost entirely certain that the file in question originated on an NTFS system, though it may well have been copied to a FAT drive then copied back to an NTFS drive at some point. Either some bug or other set nearly all the bits of the date field to zeroes, or it went through a timewarp. Allowing for more distant futures in new file systems makes perfect sense. Why would they allow dates back as far as 1610, though? Wikipedia notes the NTFS date range is "1 January 1601 – 28 May 60056 (File times are 64-bit numbers counting 100-nanosecond intervals (ten million per second) since 1601, which is 58,000+ years)" Elsethread-related, the microsoft article http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms724290(VS.85).aspx does admit that Windows lies to you about file date/time stamps: "You must take care when using file times if the user has set the system to automatically adjust for daylight saving time..." But nowhere have I been able to locate any speculation about why they chose the beginning date in 1601. Jim Deutch (JimboCat) -- "Scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Symantec's AntiVirus Research Center today confirmed that foot-and-mouth disease cannot be spread by Microsoft's Outlook email application, believed to be the first time the program has ever failed to propagate a major virus." JimboCat wrote, in <c3721e31-8d65-497d-a133-87e88bf60a23@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com> on Fri, 22 May 2009 07:38:44 -0700 (PDT): > But nowhere have I been able to locate any speculation about why they > chose the beginning date in 1601. They might as well have made a job of it and gone back to 4004 BC. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE Nick Spalding skrev: > > But nowhere have I been able to locate any speculation about why they > > chose the beginning date in 1601. > They might as well have made a job of it and gone back to 4004 BC. By going no further than 1601 they make sure that only one calendar is involved. The Gregorian Calendar was introduced in 1582. SignatureBertel http://bertel.lundhansen.dk/ FIDUSO: http://fiduso.dk/ >Nick Spalding skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >calendar is involved. The Gregorian Calendar was introduced in >1582. In some places. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>By going no further than 1601 they make sure that only one >>calendar is involved. The Gregorian Calendar was introduced in >>1582. > >In some places. No, it was introduced in one place. It was brought into official use in some places at that time. Other places took longer to adopt it officially. (Some places still don't use it, but these are mostly (all?) places that never used the Julian calendar either.) -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness Bertel Lund Hansen set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: > Nick Spalding skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > calendar is involved. The Gregorian Calendar was introduced in > 1582. 1752 here in the UK, many other countries on different dates, some varying from region to region within the country. One possible rationale for the origin being 1601 is that it's of the form 400n+1. The Gregorian calendar repeats the days of the week against the dates in a 400-year cycle [1] so 1601 is the beginning of a cycle, and a convenient point to start from to handle 20th century dates. No doubt if NTFS had only been developed now the origin would be set to 2001. [1] The 400 year cycle comprises 303 common years and 97 leap-years, totalling 303 * 365 + 97 * 366 = 146097 days. This is a multiple of 7 so it's an exact number of weeks. Signatureξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply Prai Jei skrev: > > By going no further than 1601 they make sure that only one > > calendar is involved. The Gregorian Calendar was introduced in > > 1582. > 1752 here in the UK, many other countries on different dates, some varying > from region to region within the country. The introduction as such happened only once. The switch happened at very different times in different countries. I believe that dates follow the Gregorian calender back to 1582 with no regards to which calendar was actually used at the time but I am not sure. > One possible rationale for the origin being 1601 is that it's of the form > 400n+1. That sounds logical. > No doubt if NTFS had only been developed now the origin would be set to 2001. No doubt? I have doubts. I could imagine old files loaded from another system would keep their correct date on a new NTFS-system. SignatureBertel, Denmark >"1 January 1601 – 28 May 60056 (File times are 64-bit numbers counting >100-nanosecond intervals (ten million per second) since 1601, which is >58,000+ years)" >But nowhere have I been able to locate any speculation about why they >chose the beginning date in 1601. Apparently ANSI COBOL-85 specifies that as the epoch for "integer dates". It seems like a not unreasonable choice (although why Microsoft should have chosen the COBOL epoch rather than the VMS epoch or the DOS epoch is unclear). -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness [...] > Wikipedia notes the NTFS date range is > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Elsethread-related, So they really /should / have gone back a few more centuries. Elsethread the Unmemorable reigned in Essex for only two weeks before being ousted by Eggfroth the Unbearable. > the microsoft article > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jim Deutch (JimboCat) >[...] >> Wikipedia notes the NTFS date range is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >the Unmemorable reigned in Essex for only two weeks before being ousted >by Eggfroth the Unbearable. <chuckle> SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk Steve Hayes set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: >>[...] >>> Wikipedia notes the NTFS date range is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > <chuckle> If you believe the ancient chronicles he had several rival contenders to deal with. No sooner had he dealt with Egglebert the Humperdink (who thereafter pleaded for somebody to release him, let him go), but one manuscript goes on to relate how he totally devoured Eggfuyong who had come all the way from China. Signatureξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply > Steve Hayes set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time > continuum: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > one manuscript goes on to relate how he totally devoured Eggfuyong > who had come all the way from China. ...and who was, of course, contemporary with the great Welsh King Hywel Di-llafariaid, known in English as Hywel the Vowel-less: Hywel was famously responsible for the standardization of the Welsh spelling system. SignatureMike. Mike Lyle set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: >> Steve Hayes set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time >> continuum: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > famously responsible for the standardization of the Welsh spelling > system. I've read about him. He came from Ynysybwl. Signatureξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply > Mike Lyle set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time > continuum: [...] >> ...and who was, of course, contemporary with the great Welsh King >> Hywel Di-llafariaid, known in English as Hywel the Vowel-less: Hywel >> was famously responsible for the standardization of the Welsh >> spelling system. > > I've read about him. He came from Ynysybwl. Had a lot of hwyl, too. Oh, and Jerry, if you're reading this, we owe you an explanation from months back. Sori. If you recall, there was a pun thing involving Wales and bunnies (surely the plural should be "bunce"?) and "caws pob". Your dictionary told you that this last seemed to mean "cheese each"; I never got round to telling you that this was only a glancing hit, as the phrase means "toasted cheese", i.e. "Welsh rabbit". Bwm-bwm! SignatureMike. > [snip] >> Incidentally, there's something suspicious about the way Google [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I have a file on my hard drive dated "Wednesday, October 04, 1617, > 4:17:21 PM". Good thing it wasn't from before 4004 B.C.E. --Jeff SignatureThe comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire Jeffrey Turner filted: >> I have a file on my hard drive dated "Wednesday, October 04, 1617, >> 4:17:21 PM". > >Good thing it wasn't from before 4004 B.C.E. Before that, it was an HTML file without form, and void....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Tacia <outofdejavu@gmail.com> > Whose moving finger wrote, and cheerfully [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Perhaps Evan can search the early hits in Google Books and tell > us what kinds of data bases the term could refer to. As far as I can tell, the term doesn't appear to have been used before computerized databases in the 1960s. What probably happened was that term arose with computers and was extended to cover pre-existing data collections that were in some way similar. Then "computerized database" was coined as a weird sort of retronym: it referred to the original sense of "database" but to distinguish that sense from other things were, in fact, older, but hadn't previously been called "databases". > Incidentally, there's something suspicious about the way Google > Books dates some of its publications. I find it hard to believe > that "Cyberspace and the repositioning of corporations" is really > from 1905, or that "Computer diagnosis and diagnostic methods" > was really published in 1897. That's why I try to only use dating internal to a book when I quote it. There are a lot of records that are mistitled due to OCR errors (e.g., "1999" read as "1899" or even "1699") and works simply attached to the wrong record. (One claimed 1965 hit for "data base" is supposedly a book called _Austria_, when in fact it's _Advances in Soft Computing_.) Sometimes two books get combined, and the book the quote is from isn't the book you get if you scroll up to the top. If you have enough millions of scans, you'll get problems like these. Unfortunately, the errors happen both ways. While it's relatively easy to search for something with a restriction of "date:1700-1899" and note that a purported "1895" should really be "1995", you also will have true cases of 1895 books that are accidentally read as 1995--or 1750 works hidden inside of 1987 records, and you'll never see them. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |English grammar is not taught in 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |primary or secondary schools in the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |United States. Sometimes some |mythology is taught under that kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |rubric, but luckily it's usually (650)857-7572 |ignored, except by the credulous. | John Lawler http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote >> Tacia <outofdejavu@gmail.com> >> Whose moving finger wrote, and cheerfully [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >things were, in fact, older, but hadn't previously been called >"databases". That seems like a very reasonable assumption. The idea of "data" is so closely linked to computers that it was used to form the word for computer in Swedish, first the compound "datamaskin" and then the neologism "dator" modelled on "motor". >> Incidentally, there's something suspicious about the way Google >> Books dates some of its publications. I find it hard to believe [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >1995--or 1750 works hidden inside of 1987 records, and you'll never >see them. As trustworthy as the numbers in any Google search, then. SignatureJames James Hogg skrev: > That seems like a very reasonable assumption. The idea of "data" > is so closely linked to computers that it was used to form the > word for computer in Swedish, first the compound "datamaskin" and > then the neologism "dator" modelled on "motor". In Danish "data" and "automat" were cobined to "datamat", but it never became widely used. It was soon used only about mainframes where one may still see it. We use "computer" as the general term. SignatureBertel http://bertel.lundhansen.dk/ FIDUSO: http://fiduso.dk/ > That seems like a very reasonable assumption. The idea of "data" > is so closely linked to computers that it was used to form the > word for computer in Swedish, first the compound "datamaskin" and > then the neologism "dator" modelled on "motor". Way back when I was in the 4th standard (circa 1976), we had an exercise in mathematics which involved finding out what 'data' was needed to solve a problem. They were questions like "how much do a dozen apples cost?" and the answer would be "the missing data is the price of an orange". I don't think data and computers go together- I've not done any research to confirm this, just a gut feel. Terms like "experimental data" are bound to pre-date computers. sumithar <Rashapoo@gmail.com> Whose moving finger wrote, and cheerfully Clicked "Send" to wing the words below to me, Can't lure it back to cancel half a line: 'Tis stored on Google sempiternally. >> That seems like a very reasonable assumption. The idea of "data" >> is so closely linked to computers that it was used to form the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >research to confirm this, just a gut feel. Terms like "experimental >data" are bound to pre-date computers. Well, data existed before there were computers, so in that sense you are right. The OED has a quotation from 1646: "From all this heap of data it would not follow that it was necessary." But when computers came along they were fed with data, and from then on they certainly started to go together. So many compounds of data came into existence after computers started to handle data: data base, data bank, data processing, data capture, data transfer, etc.. And Swedish and Danish terms for computer were based on the word data. So I would still say that they go together, although there can still be data without computers, of course. SignatureJames > Way back when I was in the 4th standard (circa 1976), we had an > exercise in mathematics which involved finding out what 'data' was > needed to solve a problem. They were questions like "how much do a > dozen apples cost?" and the answer would be "the missing data is the > price of an orange". OK. So if an orange cost 37p, how much /does/ a dozen apples cost? SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu Nick filted: >> Way back when I was in the 4th standard (circa 1976), we had an >> exercise in mathematics which involved finding out what 'data' was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >OK. So if an orange cost 37p, how much /does/ a dozen apples cost? Buy me the orange and I'll tell you....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? On 22 May 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote >> Incidentally, there's something suspicious about the way Google >> Books dates some of its publications. I find it hard to believe [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > accidentally read as 1995--or 1750 works hidden inside of 1987 > records, and you'll never see them. Just curious: does the Google library project use imaging, or some sort of transcription/proofing like Project Gutenberg? The latter strikes me as running the risk of embedding errors -- mainly unintentional, but potentially malicious -- in what will be treated as authoritative copies. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > The Cambridge International Corpus (CIC) is a very large collection of > English texts, stored in a computerised database, which can be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ) > Is "computerised database" tautological? The phrase (adjective and noun) is not tautological but we might say the adjective is redundant nowadays, when all new databases are created on computers. But many older databases are known, e.g. telephone directories, card indices of library holdings, criminal records, etc. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) Don Phillipson skrev: > But many older databases are known, e.g. telephone directories, > card indices of library holdings, criminal records, etc. Were they called "databases" before the computers? SignatureBertel http://bertel.lundhansen.dk/ FIDUSO: http://fiduso.dk/ >Don Phillipson skrev: > >> But many older databases are known, e.g. telephone directories, >> card indices of library holdings, criminal records, etc. > >Were they called "databases" before the computers? Not as far as I know. The earliest quotes in OED are for the computer meaning of the word: 1962 Technical Memo. (System Development Corp., Calif.) TM-WD-16/007/00. i. 5 A data base is a collection of entries containing item information that can vary in its storage media and in the characteristics of its entries and items. 1962 Technical Memo (System Development Corp., Calif.) TM-WD-16/007/00. i. 5 It is necessary to define the characteristics of a data base to the *Data Base System so that when instructed to manipulate data, the system can recognize the format and positioning of item information in the entries. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.